agricultural innovation in rural india - universal · pdf file ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Agricultural Innovation in Rural India:
The Paradox of Farmer Nonadoption in Bajwada, Madhya Pradesh
Natasha Malpani
DISSERTATION.COM
Boca Raton
Agricultural Innovation in Rural India: The Paradox of Farmer Nonadoption in Bajwada, Madhya Pradesh
Copyright © 2011 Natasha Malpani
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.
Dissertation.com Boca Raton, Florida
USA • 2011
ISBN-10: 1-61233-767-8 ISBN-13: 978-1-61233-767-8
! "!
ABSTRACT
Agricultural innovation in rural India: The paradox of nonadoption in Bajwada,
Madhya Pradesh
Farmer adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is key to sustainable development,
as changes at the farm level are essential to ensuring food security and environmental
protection. Reasons for converting to sustainable farming have been studied in a number
of instances. However, the underlying rationale that motivates this behaviour is not
always made clear.
The village of Bajwada in Madhya Pradesh is used as a case to investigate farmer
perceptions and attitudes regarding sustainable farming. An innovator has been
promoting what seems to be a highly productive and lauded method of sustainable
farming called Natu-eco farming for the past five years. Strikingly, this technique has had
practically zero adoption in the village. This study aims to examine this paradox by
exploring farmer narratives about sustainability, futures and development.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted using 18 farmers in Bajwada. Participatory
observation was also undertaken for ten days. The development discourse, the drive for
modernity and urbanization were found to be important in shaping farmer’s perspectives
on Natu-eco farming and sustainable agriculture. An understanding of the dominance of
certain discourses and narratives offers a new approach to understanding farmer adoption
and non-adoption.
The results of this study are meant to attract the attention of policymakers and
practitioners who are involved in the planning and implementation of schemes and
projects promoting sustainable agricultural innovation.
!
!
! #!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr Emma Mawdsley for being a greatly encouraging and highly
patient supervisor. I thank her for all the discussions revolving around positionality,
reflexivity and what it is that social scientists do.
I am immensely grateful to Deepak Suchde, for being a fantastic gatekeeper. Thank you
to the villagers of Bajwada and the rest of my interviewees for the great discussions,
socializing and enthusiasm. I learnt a great deal from them and hope to visit again soon.
I would like to thank the organisers of this course- this year has been a steep learning
curve, as I made the transition from life science to social science. I have enjoyed myself
immensely, and can see the difference the course has made to the way I think and argue.
My mother for one is not happy with how critical I’ve become!
I thank the ESDers for all the great conversations and fun; a lot of my learning was done
outside the library, through conversation (or the dialectical method, as we like to call it).
Lastly, a big thank you to my friends and family for their support and encouragement.
! $!
(
TABLE OF CONTENTS(
(
DJ>0FD!0MN!NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-!
D!OIPQR;@S;6;I0>N """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" T!
0DJR;(PU(!PI0;I0> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" /!
RE>0(PU(UESAF;>=(DJJF;VED0EPI>(DI@(0FDI>RD0EPI>NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNW!
.N(EI0FP@A!0EPINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNX!
%&%!'()*+,-./01!234!5(,(0-6!-7!'(89(0(:&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&;!%&"!,4<4(,)3!=.4<2>-/&&:&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?!%&#!@(A.4!-7!,4<4(,)3:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&?!%&$!<2,.)2.,4!-7!234<><:&!::&& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&B!
-N(RE0;FD0AF;(F;VE;Q NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.C!
"&%!<.<2(>/('A4!(+,>).A2.,4!(/0!/(2.C4)-!7(,D>/+:&!::&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%E!"&"!234!(0-52>-/!-7!(+,>).A2.,(A!>//-@(2>-/:&!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%%!"&#!7(,D>/+!>/!>/0>(1!234!5-A>2>)(A!4)-/-DF!-7!(+,>).A2.,4:&!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%#!"&$!)-/)452.(A!(55,-()3!2(*4/:&!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%;!
TN(6;0YP@PRPSZ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.[!
#&%!'()*+,-./0!(/0!5-5.A(2>-/:&!& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%?!#&"!,4<4(,)3!04<>+/!(/0!A>D>2(2>-/<&&&&&!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"E!!"#"$%&'(')*+,%(-*)-'./"00000000000000000000000000000000000""""""""""#1!!"#"#%2)34567.00000000000000000000000000000000000" """""""""""""""""""""""""""#1!!"#"!%8)-)%+955'+-697%)7:%)7)5/(6(00000000000000000000000000""""""""""""""""""""""#$!!"#";%&'5)-697(,64%<6-,%2=+,:'000000000000000000000000000000""""""""""""""##!!"#">%&'?5'@6A6-/%)7:%B9(6-697)56-/00000000000000000000000000000""""""""""""##!!"#"C%D-,6+(00000000000000000000000000000000000" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#;!!"#"E%F)56:6-/%)7:%&'56)G656-/00000000000000000000000000000000 """""""""""#>!
/N(F;>AR0>(DI@(DIDRZ>E> NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-X(
$&%!/(2.C4)-!7(,D>/+1!>//-@(2>-/!-,!2,(0>2>-/G::::::::::::::::&&::";!
$&"!=.(A>2F!@4,<.<!=.(/2>2F::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"H!
$&#!234!=.4<2!7-,!.,'(/><(2>-/:::::::::::::::::&&&::::::::::::"B!
$&$!7(,D>/+!7.2.,4<1!<.<2(>/('>A>2F!(/0!24)3/-A-+>)(A!-52>D><>D&::::::&#"!
$&I!234!A()*!-7!)-9<J!)-/<.D4,<!(/0!5-A>)>4<:::::::::::::::::::&&:#I!
$&;!<-)>(A!)(5>2(A!(/0!<.)304:::::::::::::::::::::::::&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&#H!
WN(!PI!RA>EPINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN/.!
XN(JEJREPSFD7YZ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN//!
!
! I!
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, TRANSLATIONS AND FIGURES
BT Bacillus Thuringiensis
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GM Genetically Modified
HYV High-Yielding Varieties
MP Madhya Pradesh
Baba Father, grandfather or sir
Gora Foreigner
Jowar Pearl millet
Kaccha Unripe
Sarkar Government
Vada Back garden
FIGURE 1. A view of Suchde’s Natu-eco farm (Page 9)
FIGURE 2. Location of Dewas district in Madhya Pradhesh (Page 19)
FIGURE 3. Observing a discussion amongst farmers (Page 23)
FIGURE 4. Reworking modernity (Page 31)
FIGURE 5. A future generation farmer? (Page 34)
FIGURE 6. Suchde on his farm (Page 38)
FIGURE 7. The sole adopter in his field (Page 40)
! ;!
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND: THE PARADOX OF BAJWADA
India has been declared to be in a state of agricultural crisis (Dhas, 2009). Farmer
suicides are making headlines across the country, as concerns about food security and
food prices escalate (Sainath, 2008). The irony of the existence of both a food surplus and
persistent hunger in India has been discussed in much detail (Roy, 2002).
According to the World Bank (2008), current modes of agriculture are neither
economically nor environmentally sustainable. Water tables in India are falling due to
unsustainable water use, while soil degradation is occurring due to the indiscriminate use
of fertilisers (Patnaik, 2007). Slightly more than half of India’s workforce is employed in
its agriculture industry. Yet, this sector only contributes to 20 per cent of the country’s
GDP and a quarter of farming households live below the poverty line (World Bank,
2010). News of rural unrest is spreading as escalating social inequality and urbanization
continue to contribute to de-agrarianization (Sharma, 2007). The rural sector is
increasingly ignored amidst reports of ‘India Shining’ and the country’s rapid GDP
growth (Patnaik, 2005).
On the other hand, the need for sustainable agricultural practices is increasingly globally
acknowledged. It is being recognised that current industrialised agricultural systems are
flawed, and that alternative systems can be both productive and equitable (Tilman, 1999).
Evidence from various developing countries demonstrates that sustainable agricultural
practices, anchored in local knowledge, are effective in developing resilient food
production systems (Pretty et al., 2006).
In this midst, an innovator in Bajwada, Deepak Suchde, is propagating a low-input, high-
yield method of farming, called Natu-eco farming. This method conserves the soil and
biodiversity, by promoting zero use of fertilisers and pesticides, while still maintaining
! H!
productivity. It also aims to provide food security for small and marginal farmers, while
enhancing farmers’ self-esteem by emphasizing the joy and spirituality of farming
(Wadia, 2010) 1.
This method was first invented by Professor Dabholkar, and has been practiced for over
40 years. According to the founder of the technique, it stresses both scientific knowledge
as well as a better understanding of nature (Dabholkar, 1998). The method has produced
record yields of grapes, sugarcane, rice and bananas (Wadia, 2010) and has attracted the
attention of politicians, academics and farmers, as it appears to be both productive and
sustainable.
The Chief Ministers of several states have personally visited Suchde’s farm. Deans of
agricultural universities contact him, asking for his advice. He lectures across the
country, and has a waiting list for his farmer training programmes. He has recently
received funding from the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development to
propagate this method. Even Reliance Life Sciences, a branch of one of India’s largest
companies, is promoting Natu-eco farming amongst subsistence farmers (Wadia, 2010).
Yet, in the village of Bajwada in Madhya Pradesh (MP), where he has lived and practiced
this technique for the past five years, there is practically zero adoption. With one
exception, all farmers use fertilisers and pesticides in their fields.
This study explores this paradox.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%!>K!LMNOPQ!RS!TNKSQ!KMUK!KMVL!WUWSX!WORPVLMSQ!RY!KMS!-RLSXZSX!,SLSUX[M!7NOTQUKVNT!\UL!
WXNQO[SQ!VT![NT]OT[KVNT!\VKM!0SSWU^!<O[MQS&!!
! ?!
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION
The main research question that guided this research was:
What factors influence the nonadoption of an apparently successful model of farming in
Bajwada?
This research question was broken down into three components:
i. What motivates the farmers of Bajwada to practice the methods of farming that
they currently employ? To what extent do they believe these methods are
sustainable?
ii. What is their perception of Natu-eco farming? What constraints or limits do they
face in its adoption?
iii. Why do they think Natu-eco farming has had such little uptake in the village
overall?
1.3 VALUE OF RESEARCH
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the analysis of farmer adoption of sustainable
farming techniques, by exploring both the incentives and barriers to adoption.
It is increasingly recognized that farmer participation is necessary to facilitate the
diffusion of agricultural innovation (Heemskerk, 2006), and in the implementation of
effective policies. Thus, in the light of the urgent need for the adoption of sustainable
agricultural practices, it is necessary to study farmer preferences and goals.
A great deal of work has been undertaken on farmer adoption, which is reviewed in
Chapter 2. However, the apparent paradox of non-adoption in Bajwada cannot be
satisfactorily explained by the factors and constraints commonly described in the
adoption literature. Thus, this study is an exploratory one, which uses a different
approach to that commonly described in the literature to explore this contradiction.
! B!
There have been few empirical studies on the narratives of non-adoption, and the role of
dominant discourses in shaping farmer perceptions and attitudes. This study expands on
conceptual and methodological work done in the study of farmer adoption by providing
empirical evidence from examining farmer narratives in Bajwada, using both postcolonial
theory and political ecology. This research aims to contribute to the social understanding
of adoption by demonstrating how the discourses that these farmers are embedded in
shape their perceptions and behaviour.
The approach taken is further described in Chapter 2, after a literature review that puts
the study into context and highlights the gaps in adoption literature.
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THESIS
This thesis is organized into five sections. Section 2 provides a literature review of the
adoption literature. Section 3 describes the methodology used in the study. Section 4
presents the results of the study along with their analysis. The paper concludes by
summarising overall findings and the policy implications that stem from them.
Figure 1. A view of Suchde’s Natu-eco farm (Source: Author)
! %E!
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, the adoption literature is evaluated critically. The argument is made for
both understanding the construction of farmers’ goals and perceptions in detail, and
taking the political economy of agriculture into consideration. The approach taken in this
study is then justified based on this line of reasoning.
2.1 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND NATU-ECO FARMING
By 2050 global grain demand is projected to double due to rapid population growth
(Tilman et al., 2002). Skewed food-trade patterns and the vulnerability of food exporters
to growing threats of climate change further exacerbate the availability and accessibility
of food, especially for the poor and vulnerable groups (UN Special Rapporteur, 2008).
In developing countries, the rural population is rapidly growing. Increased population
pressure has led to the fragmentation of land holdings (Pretty, 2002). The demise of
subsistence farming systems and the abandonment of ecologically beneficial traditional
farming practices have contributed to soil erosion and land degradation (Sachs et al.,
2010). Additionally, rural areas must deliver food and incomes to expanding populations
in the next decades but also safeguard against many aspects of the global commons.
Doubling food production in ways that do not compromise environmental integrity and
health are great international challenges (Tilman et al., 2002). There is therefore a
growing emphasis on sustainable agriculture and rural development that has moved into
mainstream political thought (Robinson, 2008). It is argued that investing in the abilities
of farmers to adopt sustainable practices will help ensure higher yields and profits, and
will encourage local food consumption (Pretty 2005; Altieri and Rosset 1995). Pretty
(2008) has called for another agriculture, founded on more ecological values, and in
accord with people, and their societies and cultures.
! %%!
While the definition of sustainable agriculture is not agreed upon, for this study,
sustainable agriculture can be defined as that form of agriculture that is ‘driven by local
knowledge and resource-conserving techniques and that makes the best use of nature’s
goods and services without damaging those assets’ (Pretty, 2005). For the purpose of this
study, Natu-eco farming is categorised as a sustainable farming technique. Natu-eco
farming takes a holistic approach to agriculture that focuses on productivity as well as
improved environmental outcomes. It promotes minimal dependence on high
agrochemical and energy inputs. Additionally, it considers the total flow of energy and
materials from the original source to the consumer, and the potential to restore nutrients
to the soil (Dabholkar, 1998).
2.2 THE ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION
Adoption can be understood to mean ‘the decision to make full use of an innovation,
which encompasses the mental processes an individual undergoes from first hearing
about to finally adopting an innovation’ (Rogers, 2003).
In light of the growing concerns over the environmental implications of conventional
agricultural practices, there are an increasing number of studies on the factors influencing
the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. There is a long and rich tradition of
empirical research that seeks to explain farmers’ adoption of particular agricultural
innovations (Feder and Umali, 1993; Cary, 2002; Vanclay, 2004). A feature of the
adoption literature is its disciplinary segmentation, which covers subjects ranging from
economics to sociology anthropology and marketing.
The debate about the relative importance of economic factors as drivers of adoption has
been raging since the 1950s, when early work stressed the profit motive (Griliches, 1957;
Found, 1971; Gould, 1963). A behavioural approach in the 1970s added the personal
characteristics of farmers to the equation, leading to the inference that adoption decisions
were a product of dynamic economic, physical and behavioural forces (Feder, 1993).
Rogers has been influential in creating a model that links personal characteristics of
! %"!
farmers with the timing of the adoption/non-adoption of the innovation in question
(Rogers, 1962, 1983; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). However, this model has been
criticised for its failure to take into account extra-personal factors such as a farmer's
ability to procure the innovation, and its unidirectional view of the communication
process from agricultural institutions to farmers (Nowak, 1983).
As outlined by Feder (1985), researchers typically select a number of potential
independent variables for inclusion in their analysis based on prior theorising. They then
test their hypothesis via logistic or probit regressions to determine which variables
correlate with adoption in some statistically significant sense. There has also been a spate
of recent papers using econometrics to analyse farmer decisions and behaviour (Liu,
2008). This literature has been criticised for operating within an empiricist and positivist
framework, and placing excessive emphasis upon quantitative measurements (Pannell et
al., 2006). Almost all investigators have used surveys to gather data, which may have
biased the results with inadequate or unreliable samples (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007).
Moreover, almost every measurable characteristic of farms and farmers has been found to
be statistically related to some measure of adoption of some innovation (Rogers, 2003).
There is an absence of any clear universally significant factors in adoption, and
sometimes contradictory results are noted (Padel, 2001). This reflects the heterogeneity
of adoption literature, and the variable quality of empirical analyses. Variation in
geography, sample sizes and statistical methods contribute to these varied findings
(Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). Vanclay (1986) has also criticised studies for failing to
untangle the effects of multiple causal variables.
Additionally, in empirical literature, the underlying theory suggests an orderly, linear
progression from awareness of an innovation to adoption. This is too prescriptive and
deterministic (Brown, 1981), as in reality the process is unpredictable and highly diverse
(Ohlmer, 1999). It has been pointed out that external factors associated with political and
institutional change are noteworthy (Allanson, 1995) and cannot be ignored; markets and
policies influence adoption decisions significantly (Feder 1993).
! %#!
This deterministic view of adoption is changing, as scholars emphasise the effects of
socio-structural factors explaining diffusion on the basis of individual attributes and
relationships amongst actors involved in the process. The role of communication and
social networks has been stressed (Rogers, 2003).
Furthermore, the role of institutional structures and settings in supporting and shaping
innovation systems has recently been emphasized in adoption literature (World Bank,
2007). The concept of innovation systems combines the role of social networks,
institutions and policy. This has proven to be a useful framework for understanding and
supporting innovation (Hall, 2005). The importance of analysing the political and
structural framework within which agriculture rests (Blaikie, 1985; Peet and Watts; 1996;
Leach and Scoones, 2001) has long been stressed. Thus, the next section considers the
political economy of agricultural practices in India.
2.3 FARMING IN INDIA: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AGRICULTURE
It is necessary to examine the nature of economy and power relationships to understand
change in society (Blaikie, 1987). This section argues that the institutionalization of
development, the Green Revolution, international food regimes and global capitalism
have all played an important role in shaping agricultural policies in India.
A Eurocentric model of development involves the transformation of a country’s economy
from one that is predominantly agricultural and rural to one that is urban and industrial
(Mellor, 1990). The Indian Government, in line with this thinking, pursued a strategy of
modernization that depended on the establishment of heavy industry after gaining
independence in 1947. It was assumed that the benefits of urbanization would trickle
down to the rural sector (Gupta, 1998). This strategy has been widely considered to be
partially responsible for the ever-widening divide between the urban and rural sector in
India (Sainath, 2003).
! %$!
International changes in the technology of food production also affected the development
of modern agriculture. In a scientific breakthrough, high-yielding varieties (HYV) of rice
and wheat were developed in the US (Cleaver, 1972). In the 1960s, as droughts across
India threatened food self-sufficiency, the Indian government under international
pressure, decided to pursue the Green Revolution (Parayil, 1992). The Green Revolution
combines the use of hybrid seeds with large doses of chemical fertiliser and intensive
irrigation to obtain high yields. It has led to a drastic transformation in agricultural
practices and has multiplied India’s wheat yield four times since the 1960s (Bairs, 2003).
However, as Bernstein (1992) notes, the Green Revolution enabled India to obtain
national self-sufficiency in food grain by the late 1970s, but per capita production fell in
11 out of 15 major states between 1960 and 1985. Some scholars have also found a
strong correlation between its success in certain regions and the distribution of irrigation
in those parts (Evenson, 2003).
Additionally, this intervention in agrarian structures had implications not only for
material conditions, but also for personal and social identity, traditions and customs
associated with the land (Shipton and Goteen, 1992). The consequences of the
technological revolution in food production have been the subject of heated debate. The
differences between the productivity gains and social costs, class implications,
environmental degradation and wheat shortages have been much discussed in literature
(Sen, 1975; Frankel, 1971; Cleaver, 1972). Shiva (1991) has famously called this
revolution the ‘colonization of the seed in the Third World’.
Coincident with the general liberalisation of the Indian economy since the early 1990s,
the Indian agricultural policy pendulum has swung sharply towards market reforms. The
creation of a dual economy, which involves substituting indigenous systems of
production with commercial production along capitalist lines, has led to the development
of a distinctive agricultural transition (Patel, 2007). Farmer suicides across the country
expose the extreme rural plight that is otherwise shadowed by the prevalent narrative of
‘India Rising’, as one of the world’s fastest growing economies (Sainath, 2002).
! %I!
Agricultural production has also changed due to shifting international pressures and
trends within global food systems. The food economy is being restructured in line with
global patterns of demand (Watts and Goodman, 1997), as agricultural production is
disembedded from local and national contexts. India is currently viewed as a lucrative
market for the multinational food retail industry. Global firms are calling for the radical
restructuring of the Indian agricultural sector, and demanding to be allowed to contact
farmers directly (Nielson and Pritchard, 2007; Patel, 2007).
On the other hand, a ‘gene revolution’ is being touted as the future of the country’s
agriculture, in order to maintain food security and feed a growing population (Qaim,
2003). With the effects of the Bt cotton disaster still being felt, farmers are protesting this
move across the country (Herring, 2009)2. The future of India’s agricultural sector is
currently undecided. Will there be a transition towards sustainable farming methods, or
towards introducing genetically modified (GM) seeds into the country?
It has been noted that livelihoods must be understood within a structural context
(Giddens, 1992). Decisions to adopt a certain farming method or model are based on a
myriad of factors, including the national and global political economy. Thus, the context
in which the farmers of Bajwada operate, and the structure that influences their
perceptions, goals and decisions, must be taken into consideration.
2.4 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
Having argued that both the unpacking of farmer narratives, and taking the political
economy of the region into account is important, this study aims to stress the role of
discourse in both framing and shaping farmers perceptions and goals.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!2MSXS!VL!U!ZULK!PVKSXUKOXS!URNOK!KMS!S__S[KL!N_!VTKXNQO[VT`!'K
! %;!
As this literature review has underscored, adoption is neither a dichotomous nor a single
factored decision. Conflicting conclusions based on studies in different regions that have
differing social, cultural and institutional environments have highlighted the importance
of context.
Discourses fundamentally shape how all concepts are thought and spoken about, and
therefore acted upon (Foucault, 1972). Therefore, discourses provide important
knowledge of the forces that shape public perceptions. Consequently, if we understand
the ways environmental problems are socially constructed, we can tailor a range of
appropriate solutions. And yet, there have been few empirical studies on the narratives of
non-adoption, and the role of dominant discourses in shaping farmer perceptions and
attitudes.
Yappa (1996), for example has shown how discourse actively constructs problems and
solutions for development using the Green Revolution. Farmers were categorised as
progressive or backwards based on their response to new high yielding seeds. Vanclay
(2010) has recently examined the role of discourse in shaping farmer behaviour and
perceptions of climate change. He points out that discourse analysis is valuable in
understanding how the discourses in which farmers are embedded are linked to their
behaviour. He emphasises the influence of discourse on beliefs, values and choices, and
maintains that an understanding of these discourses offers a new approach to aiding
behavioural change. Additionally, Stonehouse (1995) has argued that adoption is based
on subjective perceptions or expectations rather than the objective truth. If landholders do
not perceive that their goals will be met, adoption will not follow.
Thus, combining these two viewpoints, this work looks at the influence of discourse in
shaping farmer goals and perceptions, thereby influencing the adoption of Natu-eco
farming. This study examines the power of the development discourse in the village of
Bajwada and the role it plays in farmer adoption of Natu-eco farming. It analyses the
flow of power and knowledge in shaping farmer goals, aspirations and livelihoods.
! %H!
In the light of the changing agricultural sector, truly holistic solutions will have to take
into account recent history and unequal power relations (Robinson, 2002). As Ahluwalia
(2001) has argued, you have to deal with the past to understand the present. Thus, this
study also draws on Gupta’s (1998) work on the ‘post-colonial condition’ of farmers in
India, and aims to stress the ways in which their perceptions of modernity and
development shape their choices. It attempts to uncover the contradictory logic and
incommensurable discourses that Bhabha (1992) calls a central trait of this condition.
Additionally, Riggs (2007) has stressed the significance of ‘theorizing up’, to avoid
portraying people as victims. He makes a case for the importance of the ‘everyday’ and
of grounded micro-level perspectives. Consequently, this study grounds its work in the
local and everyday realities of particular people and places (Paolini, 1997). It tries to
unpack farmer narratives and constructions through the lived experiences and
consciousness of ordinary people.
In this section, this study has been contextualized. In the next section, the research
strategy and design based on the conceptual approach taken is discussed, along with its
limitations.
! %?!
3. METHODOLOGY
In this section, I begin by introducing the village of Bajwada, and my sample population.
I then justify my choice of methods and explain how they attempt to answer my research
question. I reflect on my sampling technique, as well as the validity and reliability of my
methods. I consider my position as a researcher, and how my views and presence shaped
the research conducted. I end by clarifying the constraints and context that shaped the
data.
3.1 BACKGROUND & POPULATION
Bajwada is located in the Dewas district of Madhya Pradesh (MP) in central India. The
village lies 5 km from the nearest town of Khategaon, and 140 km away from the state
capital of Bhopal. It is located in the ‘green belt’ of MP, known for its highly fertile
black soil and high agricultural outputs.
Bajwada is made up of roughly 80 households. The predominant profession in the village
is agriculture. Commonly grown crops include wheat, soya and bajra3. The farmers of
this district are distinguished by their large landholdings and access to water. According
to a 2006 census (Government of India, Land Holdings), over 70 per cent of farmers in
India own less than one hectare of land. A large proportion of farmers in India are largely
dependent on the monsoons, and struggle with the lack of irrigation facilities and
declining water tables (Rodell, 2009). The farmers of Bajwada, on the other hand, own
fields on the banks of the Narmada River. The landholding size owned on average is 30
acres. According to residents, 90 per cent of households own land. Twenty households
own land between 40 and 100 acres. Only ten households own less than ten acres of land.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#!2MS!3VTQV!TUcS!_NX!WSUXP!cVPPSK!
! %B!
Figure 2. Location of Dewas district in Madhya Pradesh
(Source: Adapted from www.onlinedewas.com)
Most farmers play a ‘managerial’ role and employ labourers in their fields, and have
additional sources of income.
While the road that connects the village to the nearest town is still unpaved, most
households have electricity for a few hours per day. Many residents own motorbikes and
television sets. A high proportion of the landholder’s children are being educated up to at
least the fifth grade.
DEWAS DISTRICT OF
MADHYA PRADESH
! "E!
Mr Suchde has practiced and propagated Natu-eco farming for the past five years in the
village, having previously been a social worker in Mumbai. He has been involved in the
field of rural development for the past 30 years. Currently however, every farmer but one
uses fertilisers and pesticides on their fields. The effects of the Green Revolution have
been slow to reach the village, and they have only begun to do so in the last ten years, as
the district has grown increasingly industrialised.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND LIMITATIONS
3.2.1 Research Strategy
I conducted field research in Bajwada for ten days in April 2011. This was a preliminary
study as neither this technique nor village have been examined before. I chose to explore
farmer preferences and attitudes about Natu-eco farming, and their reasons for non-
adoption through both a post-colonial and political ecology lens.
Despite the many benefits of quantitative methods (Bryman, 2008), I chose to utilize
qualitative methods as this study uses an inductive approach, which lays emphasis on the
way in which the farmers interpret their social world (Silverman, 2004). I used a
combination of semi-structured interviews and participant observation to collect data as I
wanted to examine farmer motivations and experiences in detail, and understand their
construction of Natu-eco farming. I used participant observation to give meaning to their
actions, as well as what they said (Bryant, 1999).
3.2.2 Sampling
I conducted interviews with 18 farmers individually. I spoke to women, children, landless
labourers, government officials and officials from NABARD (the National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development) as well. However, while the others helped give me a
holistic perspective, I focused my data collection and analysis mainly on male
! "%!
landholders who actively practiced farming in Bajwada, and it is their views that are
reflected in Chapter 3. The interview work was interspersed with both participant and
non-participant observation, as I was frequently included in social events and ceremonies
during which I took extensive field-notes.
Due to the limited time available, I used opportunistic sampling. I spoke to as many
farmers as I could gain access to. I was fortunate to meet a young social worker from
Mumbai who had spent five months in Bajwada and had made friends with the children
in the village, since these children turned out to be a great access point. As I walked
through the village, they invited me into their homes. Their fathers and grandfathers, the
farmers, were hospitable and seemed happy to chat. As the days progressed, my
interviews snowballed, and I had farmers themselves call out to me as I walked through
the village. In addition, I had a group discussion materialise spontaneously, composed of
eight farmers of medium landholding size and varying ages and education levels.
The disadvantage to this form of easy access meant that my sampling was random. I did
however manage to speak to an equivalent number of small, medium and large holding
farmers to ensure the representativeness of my sample. I made an effort to look for
deviant cases, and interviewed the sole adopter, as well as a farmer who had adopted and
then abandoned the technique. I also had several conversations with Mr Suchde about his
perception of the villagers.
3.2.3 Data collection and analysis
I memorised certain questions to guide the interviews. I conducted the interviews in
Hindi, and took detailed notes throughout. Thus, I generated two types of data: fieldwork
notes based on observation of life in the village, and transcripts of interviews taken. I
transcribed, translated and coded interviews at the end of everyday, noting down salient
points that had arisen repeatedly, while it was still fresh in my mind. I found that
analysing small bits of data at a time, before putting them together helped me see patterns
emerging more quickly. I grouped the data in various patterns, and found that my
! ""!
categories and concepts changed as I went along. I went through my entire data set at the
end of the ten days as well, to help me view my data as a coherent whole.
3.2.4 Relationship with Suchde
I had met Mr Suchde through my grandfather, who supports his work. I stayed with him
for the duration of my fieldwork. I made an active attempt not to allow this relationship
to influence my views and research. Suchde made every effort to be a helpful gatekeeper,
but not influence my investigation. He was keen to understand the non-adoption in the
village himself, but was willing to wait until after I had submitted my thesis to discuss the
findings.
3.2.5 Reflexivity and Positionality
I had previously spent a week on Suchde’s farm in August 2010, evaluating and
understanding the method of Natu-eco farming, and observing a farmer-training
workshop he was conducting. Thus, I had the advantage of knowing my way around the
village and had already established a relationship with Suchde. I found that knowing what
to expect in the village saved me a lot of time, and enabled me to focus on my study.
It is worth noting that the first time I visited Bajwada, I did not see the issues and
contradictions I discovered during my study. The contents of the MPhil have helped
shape my way of thinking and influenced my data collection and analysis. My
perspective and my own construction of reality have changed during the past year.
The study was an inductive one, as I had several preconceptions that turned out not to be
entirely grounded. I had thought that farmer awareness of the technique, as well as farm
holding size and their level of education would be key determinants in non-adoption. I
had also hypothesised that social networks and their perception of Suchde had hindered
adoption. However, as the interviews progressed, my views changed, and I shifted the
focus of my study. My learning curve on the field was rapid. I used my previous
! "#!
interview experiences to shape future interviews, and could visibly see the difference in
how much farmers were willing to disclose.
My study is necessarily informed by my having been born and brought up in Mumbai,
India. This is both an advantage and disadvantage. I had the advantage of being fluent in
Hindi, and could converse with the villagers easily. Being from the same country gave
me a familiarity with their way of life. I understood their complaints about the
government, corruption and the slang they used, having grown up reading and thinking
about similar issues. However, this was also a disadvantage as I came from the city, and
was viewed as an ‘outsider’. Interviewees were quick to clarify that I had never farmed
before, and did not plan to, at the beginning of interviews. On the other hand, this also
meant that they treated me with more respect. Chairs were brought out for me, and I was
always offered something to eat and drink.
Figure 3. Observing a discussion amongst farmers (Source: Author)